(October 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: EvF,
So you honestly consider your responses to me well thought out?
Yes. Not that it takes much.
Quote:It isn't necessarily proof of a soul but it could lend some insight into what happens after we die.
What, like losing moisture? I wasn't contradicting that, I was only contradicting the notion of it being a "soul".
Quote:That fact that you don't believe it does not mean it didn't happen.
Indeed, and the fact you do believe in something doesn't mean that it did. "Why believe?" that's the question.
Quote: Besides, I said the reason "I", me, the author of this thread, believe is because of personal experience.
I know, and as I'm trying to explain - personal experience is not evidence.
Quote:The fact that you think I am saying YOU should believe is just your erroneous reading of my post.
The fact that you think I'm saying that you're saying that, is your erroneous reading of my post. I'm just saying that personal experience is not evidence, and trying to use the Sun crashing to earth incident, as an example as to why. I never said you're trying to get me to believe. I'm questioning the fact that you seem to think your personal experience is evidence.
Quote:When did I say it was immaterial? I said, "The soul for me would be comprised of the energetic part of the body and the mind."So the mind is material to you then? Ok, fair enough. It is to me too. Are you a dualist then, or do you think the brain is basically the mind? Just out of interest...
Quote:You refer to the Kirlian photography link that I said was a dead end.
The whole point of my thread was to show that there isn't any conclusive, objective evidence of a soul but there might be some interesting follow up to Dr. MacDougall's work.
Not only is there not any 'conclusive, objective evidence', but is there any slightest bit of evidence at all? And as for a follow up, what are you referring to?
EvF
